Bryn Mawr Classical Review
04.05.10

Ancient commentaries provide modern readers with windows on both the
subject of the commentary and the philosophical world of the author. From
this commentary on Book 2 of the Physics we learn about Aristotle
and
about the philosophical issues that exercised Philoponus himself. Thus we
see Philoponus comparing (and perhaps trying to reconcile) Plato and
Aristotle, we hear echoes of Stoicism, and we find the work as a whole
suffused with Philoponus' Neoplatonist arguments and assumptions. Internal
evidence suggests that Philoponus was at work on his commentary in 517;
it has recently been argued that the work was revised after 529, after
Philoponus' conversion to Christianity.1 A.R.
Lacey claims that there are no traces of
Philoponus' later views in the commentary on Book 2 (but note for
instance, the comments about Philoponus' use of the difficult
KATADU/W at 197,34 and 308,23), and he remains agnostic about the
exact date of composition.

This volume, another in the valuable
series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle under general editor
Richard Sorabji, touches on a number of issues central to Aristotle: the
contrasts between nature and artifice or mathematics, the four causes,
nature and
teleology, and discussions of chance and necessity. Philoponus does his
best to explain Aristotle's positions, but then feels free to go on,
sometimes criticizing, sometimes expanding the argument far beyond the few
comments Aristotle might make about an issue. As might be expected,
Philoponus has most to say when his own views conflict with Aristotle's,
as when he disagrees with Aristotle on the nature of formal causes (298,20
ff.) or suggests that there are actually six, rather than four, causes
(see 241,18ff. along with Lacey's note 342); or when he attempts to
harmonize Plato and Aristotle (again on the issue of causes). While
recognizing Aristotle's authority, Philoponus does not hesitate to
chastise and correct him. At 309,9ff. Philoponus disagrees strongly with
the Aristotelian account of ends and necessity: "Thus Aristotle then; but
this argument does not seem to me to be sound" (DOKEI= DE/ MOI MH\
U(GIW=S E)/XEIN TOU=TO TO\ E)PIXEI/RHMA).2 Tracing out the
disagreements adds much to our understanding both of Aristotle's own
positions and of the development of philosophical views since the fourth
century BC. An example is Philoponus' repeated references to prime matter,
something that is not, I am convinced, part of Aristotle's own theory of
change.3

A.R. Lacey's translations are
clear and colloquial without
being folksy. He has done a fine job of dealing with Philoponus' tortured
syntax and sometimes interminable sentences. (Occasionally the
translator's exasperation does break through: note 288 reads: "Even
Philoponus must end a sentence somewhere, and at this point [233,22] he
ends the one he
began at the beginning of this paragraph [233,4].") Lacey departs from
Vitelli's Berlin text of Book 2 some 68 times, often following out
suggestions made by Vitelli himself, and he is scrupulous in dealing with
textual difficulties. The 135 pages of translation are accompanied by 910
notes, a short introduction, a bibliography, an English-Greek glossary, a
Greek-English Index, and a subject index. The volume is rounded out, as
are all the volumes in the series, with Sorabji's general introduction to
the Aristotelian Commentators in an Appendix. The notes are gathered
together at the back of the book, which is inconvenient for the reader,
who often encounters as many as four notes in a single sentence, and ten
or more notes on a page. The introduction places the notes at the bottom
of the page, and this is the method followed in, for instance, Furley and
Wildberg' s volume on Philoponus and Simplicius, and Dooley's translation
of Alexander of Aphrodisias on Metaphysics I. The sheer number of
Lacey's notes may have persuaded the editor and publisher to put the notes
at the
back, but it does make the reading difficult.

The notes are clear
and helpful; there is discussion of textual, philological, and
philosophical points, and Lacey works hard to keep the reader on track
through long arguments and discussions. But these are notes and not a
commentary. Lacey often (and generously) refers to the work of others, but
it would have been helpful
to have more idea of the points he wishes to make by such references. Too
often, the reader is simply told, "on this point, see X." Those who are
not Philoponus scholars or who wish
fuller discussions would do well to read this volume in conjunction with
Aristotle Transformed and Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian
Science, both edited by Richard Sorabji.4

The name "Philoponus" means "lover of work." As Sorabji has
pointed out, we have no way of knowing whether this name was given to John
Philoponus for this reason.5 But all who
care about ancient philosophy should be glad that Sorabji and his
translators are lovers of work. This volume is an important addition to a
wonderful series.

NOTES

[1] The date of 517 is
suggested by a reference at 703,16-17; the revised dating is argued for by
Koenraad Verrycken in "The Development of Philoponus' Thought and its
Chronology" in R. Sorabji, ed. Aristotle Transformed (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1990) pp. 233-274. Lacey refers to a
dissertation in
progress by F. de Haas (Leiden) for further refinements of Verrycken's
chronological views.

[5] Sorabji also points out that
the name "had also been given to groups of Christian lay workers." See R.
Sorabji, "John Philoponus," pp. 1-40 in Philoponus and the Rejection of
Aristotelian Science. The discussion of Philoponus' name is on pp.
5-6.